›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

CNN Hologram

AndrewAndrew
edited November 2008 in Technology
Viable technology, gimmick, or just astrometric droids?

thOxW19vsTg
«1

Comments

  • djfooboodjfooboo
    Pointless. I was laughing so hard it didn't matter what was being said. The Microsoft surface map thing was definitely a useful technology this year. The Star Wars hologram not so much.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
    I'd have to see this in person, not through a computer or TV screen.
    For now, it's certainly just a gimmick as it without a doubt, and I believe this is the only quantifier that qualifies to describe it, fucking expensive. Also certainly rather unwieldy from the description in the clip.
  • NerissaNerissa
    edited November 2008
    I watch the hologram with Will.i.am and could not stop laughing. Of course that is why I watched cnn because they were advertising this. (Please let Al Franken win)
    Post edited by Nerissa on
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited November 2008
    Help me Wolf Blitzer, you're my only hope!
    Post edited by Churba on
  • WalkerWalker
    I have to agree with this guy:

    "ElKabong61 (3 minutes ago):
    She certainly was a tiny hologram. They should have made her 10 feet tall. That would have been cool"

    The technology still hasn't been applied properly yet.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited November 2008
    Here is the important question for me:
    What problem did this solve?
    Answer: None

    And of course the image was still displayed on a 2D television screen.

    Technology for the mere sake of technology is fun, but a gimmick nonetheless.

    At least it stopped them from touching that map for a short while.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • ......
    Wait, what is it, an actual hologram, or just augmented reality? From what I gather that she says, and looking at the video I say the latter, nobody in that studio sees a thing other than that red dot on the floor. I'd have to see this in person before I'd believe it.
  • AprecheApreche
    What problem did this solve?
    Answer: None
    Get more ratings for CNN than other networks.
  • ΣπεκωσποκΣπεκωσποκ
    What problem did this solve?
    Answer: None
    Get more ratings for CNN than other networks.
    CNN is already one of the top election watchers in the media. Hubris, maybe?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited November 2008
    If this technology really worked, the porn industry would have adopted it by now. So I'm guessing that they were staring at a dot on the floor.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • NeitoNeito
    Wait, what is it, an actual hologram, or just augmented reality?
    It's just a greenscreen effect.
  • VigaViga
    I laughed so hard when I saw this last night. I was like, "Why is this even here?!"
  • TyashkiTyashki
    It's just a greenscreen effect.
    Gizmodo Explains
    Actually it's closer to Bullet Time...
    • 35 HD cameras pointed at the subject in a ring
    • Different cameras shoot at different angles (like the matrix), to transmit the entire body image
  • NeitoNeito
    Yeah, but on WOLF BLITZER's end, it's just a greenscreen.
  • ......
    edited November 2008
    It's just a greenscreen effect.
    • Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario
    Augmented reality. No greenscreen, just that red dot, the studio video is mixed with the 'hologram' video by a 20 computers.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected"
    According to Wikipedia, for the volumetric equivalent of a 1024x160 2D display, you'd need some sort of data linkage capable of 160GB/s transmitting of hologram data, in addition to CPU and GPU power 3 orders of magnitude higher than what we currently have.

    I think that's pretty crazy.
  • WalkerWalker
    it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected"
    According to Wikipedia, for the volumetric equivalent of a 1024x160 2D display, you'd need some sort of data linkage capable of 160GB/s transmitting of hologram data, in addition to CPU and GPU power 3 orders of magnitude higher than what we currently have.

    I think that's pretty crazy.
    You'd think they could give R2D2 a speech synthesizer.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    It's just a greenscreen effect.
    • Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario
    Augmented reality. No greenscreen, just that red dot, the studio video is mixed with the 'hologram' video bya20 computers.
    I've worked a lot with AR and have a good deal of experience in experimenting with it. I agree, that is very clearly augmented reality. The red dot on the floor is a grounding point for her image and the angle at which we see her is determined by which camera is currently in use. In terms of the slow pans and zooms, they are all taking place in CNN's broadcast video system so they are computer generated as well. That sort of setup makes it very easy for it to seem like hologram projection, when in reality it's not. Also, using the red dot as a point of focus for Wolf Blitzer is a technique which has been in use for many years when the mixing of CG and live action takes place in movies. Quite often its representative prop or another actor standing in place of the CG. See the behind the scenes footage for the Death Note Movies for a good example.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I take this as a slight proof of concept. The thing to take away from this is that holograms can be done, it's only a matter of time now.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    I take it the reason she was in monochrome was to conserve bandwidth. If they did it in colour (by predicting the angle ahead of time) they could have just stuck a metal H to her head, Red Dwarf style.
  • JasonJason
    I take this as a slight proof of concept. The thing to take away from this is that holograms can be done, it's only a matter of time now.
    This did not show that holograms can be done. It only showed that many cameras can make a three-dimensional model of an object -- something we've been doing a very long time. The problem with holograms has always been how to control the projection of light into a three-dimensional viewing area; this experiment didn't do that. It pretended to do that on a two-dimensional surface.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    It's a studio effect, not an actual hologram. What is the point of looking at a hologram on a flat screen?
  • ......
    I take this as a slight proof of concept. The thing to take away from this is that holograms can be done, it's only a matter of time now.
    Here is the problem with holograms. A (3D) hologram is not much different from a projection of a film from a film projector. You just project light. The problem with holograms is, upon what do you project it? Augmented reality is more likely to happen. Just wear special glasses or lenses and a 'hologram' will be projected in your field of vision.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I take this as a slight proof of concept. The thing to take away from this is that holograms can be done, it's only a matter of time now.
    Here is the problem with holograms. A (3D) hologram is not much different from a projection of a film from a film projector. You just project light. The problem with holograms is, upon what do you project it? Augmented reality is more likely to happen. Just wear special glasses or lenses and a 'hologram' will be projected in your field of vision.
    So? Yeah it's a marketing gimmick now, but they're trying.
  • Loganator456Loganator456
    It's a studio effect, not an actual hologram. What is the point of looking at a hologram on a flat screen?
    I agree to some extent. It pretty much defeats the purpose, except back when it was a new concept. Now everyone knows what holograms are.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Here is the problem with holograms. A (3D) hologram is not much different from a projection of a film from a film projector. You just project light. The problem with holograms is, upon what do you project it? Augmented reality is more likely to happen. Just wear special glasses or lenses and a 'hologram' will be projected in your field of vision.
    There is actualy an Australian Lab that has managed it, a number of years ago, but the problem was that the slightest vibration or movement was enough to knock it out of alignment and kill the whole image - even to the point where a car driving on the nearest main road could mess it up. This lab was in the middle of the desert, too, it isn't as if the nearest road was right outside the front door.
  • LusankyaLusankya
    The Gorillaz live concerts were more hologram-esque than what CNN pulled off.
  • TyashkiTyashki
    I take it the reason she was in monochrome was to conserve bandwidth. If they did it in colour (by predicting the angle ahead of time) they could have just stuck a metal H to her head, Red Dwarf style.
    Or they had plenty of bandwidth and just wanted to make it look like Star Wars.
  • AtheriShadowAtheriShadow
    Have they/will they continue using this? It seems like a lot to set up and spend just for a little while on election day.
  • NeitoNeito
    Have they/will they continue using this? It seems like a lot to set up and spend just for a little while on election day.
    It's cable news. Anything for three or four more eyeballs.
Sign In or Register to comment.